Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references

VLT/ERIS observations of the V960 Mon system: a dust-embedded substellar object formed by gravitational instability?

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the discovery of a compact L'-band point source near the eruptive young star V960 Mon that is likely a deeply embedded substellar companion, possibly caught in the act of forming by gravitational instability in a…

desk verdict A credible new L'-band companion candidate around V960 Mon whose GI-forming interpretation rests on an unverified bound association. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13571 v1 pith:SPZER76V submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Anuroop Dasgupta , Alice Zurlo , Philipp Weber , Francesco Maio , Lucas A. Cieza , Davide Fedele , Antonio Garufi , James Miley
show 3 more authors
Prashant Pathak Sebastián Pérez Veronica Roccatagliata
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords gravitationalinstabilitysubstellarcompanionFUOrionishigh-contrastimagingcircumplanetarydiskprotoplanetaryL'-bandphotometrydirect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

V960 Mon is a young eruptive star whose surrounding disk shows a spiral arm that appears to be fragmenting into dusty clumps, one of the few known sites where gravitational instability may be forming companions. Using high-contrast L'-band imaging with VLT/ERIS, the authors detect a new compact point source at $0.898''$ from the star, with a contrast of $(8.39 \pm 0.07) \times 10^{-3}$, that is not seen in H-band data from SPHERE. They argue the object is deeply embedded: it is co-located with polarized scattered light from the primary, would need more than $A_V > 56.6$ mag of visual extinction to hide its photosphere, and its L'-band brightness implies a mass of roughly $660\,M_\mathrm{Jup}$ under 1-Myr evolutionary models, but that value is likely inflated by a circum(sub)stellar disk, while the H-band non-detection caps the photospheric mass near $38\,M_\mathrm{Jup}$. The candidate lies only 187 milliarcseconds from an ALMA submillimeter clump, though the two are not spatially coincident. If a second epoch confirms the source is gravitationally bound to V960 Mon, it would be among the first direct detections of a substellar object forming by disk fragmentation.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the multi-wavelength mismatch between a bright $L'$-band ($3.8\,\mu$m) detection and an $H$-band ($1.625\,\mu$m) non-detection for a source at the same position. That mismatch is quantified with a $5\sigma$ total-intensity contrast curve from SPHERE/IRDIS, produced with the IRDAP pipeline, and with AMES-Cond evolutionary isochrones accessed through the species package to convert magnitude limits into mass limits; the extinction needed to reconcile the two bands ($A_V > 56.6$ mag) is computed with a standard extinction law. The companion interpretation is supported by a TRILEGAL simulation of the background star density, which puts the chance-alignment probability at $\sim 0.4\%$, and by the geometry of polarized scattered light, whose angle of linear polarization points back toward the primary.

What would settle it

Take a second-epoch L'-band image of V960 Mon at least one year after the 2024 ERIS observation and measure the candidate's position relative to the central star. A background interloper would move at the field's expected proper motion, whereas a bound companion at roughly 2000 au should show negligible relative motion; any measured shift comparable to the background proper motion would falsify the companion interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to have found a previously unknown compact source in the L'-band image of V960 Mon, at a projected separation of $0.898''$ and a flux contrast of $(8.39 \pm 0.07) \times 10^{-3}$ relative to the central star, with an apparent L' magnitude of $12.8 \pm 0.2$ mag. The source is not detected in archival SPHERE H-band total intensity, yielding a $5\sigma$ upper mass limit of $\sim 38\,M_\mathrm{Jup}$, while L'-band photometry interpreted with AMES-Cond isochrones at an assumed age of 1 Myr gives $\sim 660\,M_\mathrm{Jup}$; the paper interprets this discrepancy as evidence that the L'-band emission is dominated by warm dust in a circum(sub)stellar disk or accretion-heated material rather than by photospheric light. The candidate is offset by 187 mas from the nearest ALMA 1.3 mm continuum clump, and it coincides with extended polarized H-band light whose angle of linear polarization is perpendicular to the direction toward the primary star, that is, light from the star scattered by small dust grains at the candidate's location. The authors conclude that the source is likely a deeply embedded, actively accreting substellar object forming within the gravitationally unstable spiral arm of V960 Mon, although they explicitly note that it remains a candidate pending confirmation of common proper motion.

Load-bearing premise

The compact L'-band source is gravitationally bound to V960 Mon rather than a chance-aligned background star; the paper's own TRILEGAL estimate leaves a 0.4% chance of a background object, and no second-epoch astrometry exists to demonstrate common proper motion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The L'-band brightness of the candidate is likely dominated by circum(sub)stellar dust or accretion emission, so evolutionary-model masses from L'-band photometry (about 660 Jupiter masses) are upper limits rather than true masses.
  • The H-band non-detection caps the photospheric mass at about 38 Jupiter masses, suggesting the underlying object is likely substellar, a brown dwarf or giant planet, rather than a star.
  • The candidate is deeply embedded, requiring more than 56.6 magnitudes of visual extinction to hide its photosphere, and it is surrounded by small dust grains that scatter the primary's light.
  • A second-epoch observation can test whether the source shares V960 Mon's proper motion; the current 0.4% background probability makes this test necessary before the companion status is secure.
  • If confirmed, the candidate would be a rare case of a young companion detected through its circumplanetary material in a disk undergoing gravitational fragmentation, complementing systems like PDS 70.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the companion interpretation holds, the 187-mas offset between the ALMA clump and the L'-band source could be a signature of a stratified circumplanetary disk, with warm inner dust seen by ERIS and colder outer dust seen by ALMA; higher-resolution submillimeter or mid-infrared imaging would distinguish that from two unrelated clumps.
  • The disk-dominated interpretation predicts that the candidate's mid-infrared flux should be variable and that Br-alpha at 4.05 microns or other accretion lines should be present; a single medium-resolution spectrum would test this prediction.
  • The same L'-band versus H-band non-detection diagnostic could be applied to other FU Orionis objects with spiral-arm detections, potentially revealing more deeply embedded companion candidates without requiring deep near-infrared surveys.
  • Should the object be confirmed as a companion formed by gravitational instability, its high-entropy 'hot start' formation would make its luminosity at a given mass and age higher than core-accretion models predict; a dynamical mass measurement, though difficult at this separation and distance, would directly test formation-pathway models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents VLT/ERIS L'-band imaging of the FU Orionis object V960 Mon, reporting a new compact source at 0.898±0.01 arcsec separation with contrast (8.39±0.07)×10^-3, and interprets it as a dust-embedded substellar companion candidate possibly formed by gravitational instability. The source is undetected in SPHERE H-band total intensity; the authors estimate a formal mass of ~660 M_Jup from L' photometry with AMES-Cond at an assumed age of 1 Myr and distance 2189 pc, but argue this is inflated by circum(sub)stellar disk emission and extinction. They place an upper mass limit of ~38 M_Jup from the H-band non-detection, discuss co-location with polarized scattered light and an offset ALMA clump, and quantify a 0.4% background-star probability via TRILEGAL. The paper explicitly identifies missing elements: no dedicated PSF reference, no second epoch for proper-motion confirmation, and assumptions on age, distance, and absolute calibration.

Significance. If the candidate is confirmed as bound, this would be a rare and potentially important case: a very young, deeply embedded substellar object in a gravitationally unstable disk environment, complementing the ALMA spiral/clump interpretation of V960 Mon. The paper is honest about its limitations and includes quantified systematics for the contrast measurement (aperture tests, ~2.5% deviation), a quantified background contamination estimate (TRILEGAL Pbg ≈ 0.4%), and explicit statements that age, distance, and central-star L' magnitude are assumed. The central detection itself is supported by robust photometry and astrometry, but the physical interpretation as a bound companion rests on unverified association; the scientific significance is therefore conditional on confirmation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.5] The TRILEGAL background estimate of Pbg ≈ 0.4% is the only quantitative test of the candidate being bound to V960 Mon, but it is presented as a single number without propagated uncertainties. The field is at b = -0.07 deg, inside the Galactic plane, where the simulated surface density depends sensitively on the assumed extinction column and the faint-end luminosity function; a factor-of-several error in Σ would change Pbg proportionally. Also, the simulation uses IRAC [3.6] as a proxy for L', which is not ideal for very red, embedded, or late-type contaminants, and the search region used for candidate selection is larger than the single aperture of 2.53 arcsec^2 (the field contains ALMA clumps and a polarized-light feature that motivated the inspection). The paper should quantify the sensitivity of Pbg to these choices (e.g., varying the extinction law, using the actual L' filter response, and computing the probability within the full effective search region) or explicitly state that these are not accounted for.
  2. [§3.1 / §4.5] The companion interpretation is not yet supported by common-proper-motion confirmation, and the paper itself acknowledges that no second epoch exists. Given that the central scientific claim (a bound, embedded substellar object formed by GI) collapses if the source is unrelated, the absence of any second-epoch astrometry or an alternative physical association test is a load-bearing gap. The ERIS detection is at one epoch only; the paper's own statement in §4.5 that a second epoch is needed 'to test for common proper motion and confirm bound status' should be elevated from a future-work remark to a central caveat in the abstract/conclusions, and the authors should state what astrometric precision would be required to confirm or refute companionship with a single additional epoch.
  3. [§3.1 (absolute calibration)] The absolute L' magnitude of the central star is derived from a NEOWISE Band 1/Band 2 mean with an assumed ±0.2 mag uncertainty, yet this calibration directly sets L'_cand = 12.8 ± 0.2 mag and thereby the mass estimate of ~660 M_Jup. The text notes V960 Mon is variable and that no photometric standard was observed, but it does not propagate the variability into the mass estimate. Please state the range of L' magnitudes consistent with known variability (e.g., from NEOWISE time series) and show how the derived mass changes; otherwise the mass estimate should be labeled as an order-of-magnitude illustration rather than a quantitative result.
  4. [§3.3.1] The mass estimate of ~660 M_Jup uses AMES-Cond isochrones at 1 Myr with an assumed distance of 2189±281 pc, but the paper does not state the absolute L' magnitude corresponding to the measured L'_cand = 12.8 mag, nor does it show the isochrone interpolation or the resulting uncertainty from the distance and magnitude errors. Given that the paper itself concludes this mass is likely an upper limit dominated by disk/line emission, the formal mass is not central to the interpretation, but the presentation should avoid giving a false impression of precision: please quote the mass as a range (e.g., from propagating the ±0.2 mag, ±281 pc, and age sensitivity) or explicitly state that this value is not a robust mass estimate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2] There is a typo in the data reduction paragraph: 'We fol reduction workflow presented in Maio et al. (2025)' should read 'We follow the reduction workflow...'.
  2. [§4.4 / Appendix A] The text in §4.4 says 'several sources identified in our ERIS L'-band image, specifically the companion candidate, the northern component (V960 Mon N, also known as UCAC4430-024261), the northeastern source (NE), Source 1 and Source 2—are visible in the reduced SPHERE H-band total intensity image', but Appendix A states the candidate is not detected in H-band ('more importantly, the candidate southeast of the primary' is listed as an exception). This apparent contradiction should be resolved; presumably the candidate is not visible in H-band, and the sentence in §4.4 should exclude it.
  3. [§4.3] The AoLP discussion is compact but well grounded. However, the phrase 'the polarized signal does not resemble the PSF of the observation' would benefit from a quantitative statement of the FWHM or extent of the polarized feature relative to the PSF, since this is the key argument that the polarized light is scattered ambient light rather than direct emission from the candidate.
  4. [Table 1] For sources 'N' and 'NE', the astrometry is given to 0.01 arcsec, but for the new candidate the quoted separation in the text is 0.898±0.009 arcsec while Table 1 lists 0.89±0.01 arcsec; please harmonize the rounding and uncertainties across text, abstract, and table.
  5. [§3.2] The sentence 'The ALMA Band 6 observations were obtained in 2016 as part of program 2016.1.00209.S (PI: Takami) and reanalyzed by Weber et al. (2023)' is fine, but the phrase 'Given the central star's mass of 0.6 M_sun and a projected separation of about 2000 au' uses the assumed age and distance; please make clear that the 2000 au projected separation scales with the adopted distance of 2189 pc and is not a measured quantity.
  6. [§5] The conclusions state 'this source may represent the first direct detections of a substellar object forming via gravitational instability' (plural 'detections'); please correct to 'first direct detection'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ERIS L'-band detection is a new measurement, and the mass and background estimates rest on explicitly stated external models and assumptions rather than on fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central result is the measured L'-band contrast of (8.39 ± 0.07) × 10^-3 for a compact source at 0.898 arcsec from V960 Mon. This quantity is obtained directly from aperture photometry with explicit systematic checks, not from any model parameter fitted to the same data. The mass estimate of ~660 M_Jup is a one-way application of the AMES-Cond isochrones to the photometry at an assumed age of 1 Myr, and the paper explicitly cautions that the value likely includes disk and accretion emission and should be interpreted as an upper limit (Sections 3.3.1 and 4.1). The H-band non-detection and resulting 38 M_Jup upper limit are independent constraints, not predictions derived from the same fitted values. The TRILEGAL background probability of ~0.4% is a standard chance-alignment calculation using the measured candidate magnitude and separation; it does not force the companion interpretation, and the paper explicitly recommends a second epoch to test common proper motion. The self-citations to Weber et al. (2023, 2025) supply ALMA continuum contours and archival SPHERE data that are independent of the new ERIS detection; they provide context for the interpretation but are not used to manufacture the detection or to close the argument circularly. The paper openly identifies the main limitations: no second-epoch astrometry, uncertain age and distance, and possible disk contribution. These are correctness risks, not circular steps. No equation or fitted parameter reduces to its own input by construction, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central detection relies on the measured contrast as input, but all physical interpretation depends on external models and assumed parameters. No new physical entities are postulated; the main burdens are the assumed age, AMES-Cond isochrones, the Gaia distance, the extinction law, and the TRILEGAL background model.

free parameters (3)
  • System age = 1 Myr (assumed, not fitted)
    Adopted as a conservative upper limit because AMES-Cond isochrones do not provide solutions for younger ages; directly sets the mass estimates from L' and H-band limits.
  • Distance to V960 Mon = 2189 pc (from Gaia)
    Taken from Gaia Collaboration et al. (2023) with uncertainty ±281 pc; used to convert fluxes to luminosities and masses.
  • Central star L' magnitude = 7.6 mag (from NEOWISE mean)
    Estimated from the mean of NEOWISE Bands 1 and 2 because no contemporaneous photometric standard was observed; calibrates the candidate's apparent magnitude and carries ±0.2 mag uncertainty.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AMES-Cond evolutionary models are appropriate for the candidate
    Invoked in Section 3.3 to translate L' brightness and H-band limits into masses; validity at 1 Myr and for embedded, possibly disk-bearing objects is unverified.
  • domain assumption The system age is about 1 Myr and the companion is not older
    Used throughout the mass estimates; Kóspál et al. (2015) estimated 0.6 Myr from the SED, and the authors treat 1 Myr as an upper limit, but no direct age measurement exists for the candidate.
  • domain assumption The Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction law applies along this line of sight
    Used in Section 4.1 to convert the inferred color excess into AV > 56.6 mag; different extinction laws would change the required extinction.
  • domain assumption TRILEGAL stellar population synthesis accurately predicts background star density toward V960 Mon
    Used in Section 4.5 to estimate a 0.4% chance of a background contaminant; the result depends on the model's stellar density and magnitude distribution in that direction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VLT/ERIS observations of the V960 Mon system: a dust-embedded substellar object formed by gravitational instability?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SPZER76V

@misc{pith2026250713571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VLT/ERIS observations of the V960 Mon system: a dust-embedded substellar object formed by gravitational instability?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SPZER76V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13571}
}
abstract

V960~Mon is an FU Orionis object that shows strong evidence of a gravitationally unstable spiral arm that is fragmenting into several dust clumps. We report the discovery of a new substellar companion candidate around this young star, identified in high-contrast $L'$-band imaging with VLT/ERIS. The object is detected at a projected separation of $0.898 \pm 0.01$ arcseconds with a contrast of $(8.39 \pm 0.07) \times 10^{-3}$. The candidate lies close to the clumps previously detected in the sub-mm (at 1.3 mm) and is co-located with extended polarized IR signal from scattered stellar irradiation, suggesting it is deeply embedded. The object is undetected in the SPHERE $H$-band total intensity, placing an upper mass limit of $\sim38~M_\mathrm{Jup}$ from the contrast curve. Using evolutionary models at an assumed age of 1~Myr, we estimate a mass of $\sim660~M_\mathrm{Jup}$ from the L' brightness; however, this value likely includes a significant contribution from a disk around the companion. The discrepancy between near- and mid-infrared results again suggests the source is deeply embedded in dust. This candidate may represent an actively accreting, disk-bearing substellar object in a young, gravitationally unstable environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. VLT/ERIS image of V960 Mon in L ′ -band. The left panel shows the FUor object embedded in its environment, marking the detection of V960 Mon N and V960 Mon NE. The right panel shows a zoom-in onto V960 Mon, overlayed with ALMA band 6 continuum contours at 3, 4, and 5 σrms (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SPHERE/IRDAP polarised light image of V960 Mon in H-band (see Weber et al. 2023). The white contours show the L ′ -signal. The grey circle delineates the coronagraph used in the observation. The white bars show the AoLP of the polarized light. The inset is at increased contrast and centered on the location of the ERIS candi￾date, marked by a black cross. the ALMA emission traces colder dust in the outer disk. The di… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contrast curve for the total intensity from SPHERE H-band. The vertical dashed line shows the sepa￾ration of the L ′ -band candidate. The grey-shaded area shows the separation covered by the coronagraph. reduced SPHERE H-band total intensity image. While these sources were not formally identified in the original SPHERE data analysis, they are consistently detected at similar locations. For clarity, we provide an ann… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SPHERE/IRDIS H-band (λobs = 1.625 µm) total intensity image of V960 Mon (cf. Weber et al. 2025). The main panel saturates the inner region, to highlight the detection of Source 1 and Source 2, as well as the northern and north eastern components in H-band. Source 3 fal…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    General Analytic Solutions for Circumplanetary Disks during the Late Stages of Giant Planet Formation

    Adams, F. C., & Batygin, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.13130, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.13130

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.13130 2025

  2. [2]

    H., Alexander, D

    Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., Tamanai, A., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, ApJ, 556, 357, doi: 10.1086/321547

    doi:10.1086/321547 2001

  3. [3]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11

    Aoyama, Y., Ikoma, M., & Tanigawa, T. 2018, ApJ, 866, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11 2018

  4. [4]

    J., Livio, M., & Pringle, J

    Armitage, P. J., Livio, M., & Pringle, J. E. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 705, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04356.x

    arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Audard, M., ´Abrah´ am, P., Dunham, M. M., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 387–410, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch017

    doi:10.2458/azu 2014

  6. [6]

    2021, ApJL, 916, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    Benisty, M., Bae, J., Facchini, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 916, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83 2021

  7. [7]

    Boss, A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836, doi: 10.1126/science.276.5320.1836

    arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    Bowler, B. P. 2016, PASP, 128, 102001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/968/102001 Caratti o Garatti, A., Garcia Lopez, R., Ray, T. P., et al. 2015, ApJL, 806, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L4

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/968/102001 2016

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900 12

    1989 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Kuzuhara, M., et al

    Currie, T., Brandt, T. D., Kuzuhara, M., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11823, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets X, ed. S. B. Shaklan & G. J. Ruane, 1182304, doi: 10.1117/12.2595001

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, (I...

    2003

  4. [12]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2013, Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release

    2013

  5. [13]

    2023, A&A, 674, A207, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346559 de Boer, J., Langlois, M., van Holstein, R

    Davies, R., Absil, O., Agapito, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A207, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346559 de Boer, J., Langlois, M., van Holstein, R. G., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834989

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, A&A, 682, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348753

    Fenton, A., & Stamatellos, D. 2024, A&A, 682, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348753

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Hillenbrand, L

    Fischer, W. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2023

  8. [16]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed

    Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 355, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11257 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Girardi, L., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Hatziminaoglou, E., & da Costa, L. 2005, A&A, 436, 895, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042352

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, A&A, 623, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834760

    Gratton, R., Ligi, R., Sissa, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834760

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Y., Bohn, A

    Haffert, S. Y., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    J., et al

    Hammond, I., Christiaens, V., Price, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad027

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    S., Babler, B

    Indebetouw, R., Mathis, J. S., Babler, B. L., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 931, doi: 10.1086/426679

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, ApJL, 879, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a12

    Isella, A., Benisty, M., Teague, R., et al. 2019, ApJL, 879, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a12

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2018, A&A, 617, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957 K´ osp´ al,´A., ´Abrah´ am, P., Mo´ or, A., et al

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., M¨ uller, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957 K´ osp´ al,´A., ´Abrah´ am, P., Mo´ or, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 801, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L5 K´ osp´ al,´A., Cruz-S´ aenz de Miera, F., White, J. A., et al. 2021, Ap...

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 271, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    Kratter, K., & Lodato, G. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 271, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Murray-Clay, R

    Kratter, K. M., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Youdin, A. N. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1375, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1375

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    S., & Haugbølle, T

    Kuffmeier, M., Frimann, S., Jensen, S. S., & Haugbølle, T. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty024

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Lodato, G., & Clarke, C. J. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 841, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08112.x

    2004

  20. [28]

    2010, ApJS, 186, 111, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/186/1/111

    Calvet, N. 2010, ApJS, 186, 111, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/186/1/111

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    2014, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 6770, 1

    Maehara, H., Kojima, T., & Fujii, M. 2014, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 6770, 1

    2014

  22. [30]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.19810, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.19810

    Maio, F., Roccatagliata, V., Fedele, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.19810, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.19810

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    2019, A&A, 632, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936764

    Mesa, D., Keppler, M., Cantalloube, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936764

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2013, A&A, 558, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321617

    Mordasini, C. 2013, A&A, 558, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321617

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    L., De Rosa, R

    Nielsen, E. L., De Rosa, R. J., Macintosh, B., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab16e9 Paneque-Carre˜ no, T., P´ erez, L. M., Benisty, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf243

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Meyer, M

    Reggiani, M., Quanz, S. P., Meyer, M. R., et al. 2014, ApJL, 792, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/L23

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    2004, ApJL, 608, L65, doi: 10.1086/422250

    Reipurth, B., & Aspin, C. 2004, ApJL, 608, L65, doi: 10.1086/422250

    2004 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, Nature, 633, 58, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07877-0

    Speedie, J., Dong, R., Hall, C., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 58, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07877-0

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    M., et al

    Stolker, T., Min, M., Stam, D. M., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730780

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Todorov, K

    Stolker, T., Quanz, S. P., Todorov, K. O., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937159 Szul´ agyi, J., Dullemond, C. P., Pohl, A., & Quanz, S. P. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1326

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    G., & Adams, F

    Taylor, A. G., & Adams, F. C. 2025, Icarus, 425, 116327, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116327

    2025

  33. [41]

    J., Kratter, K

    Tobin, J. J., Kratter, K. M., Persson, M. V., et al. 2016, Nature, 538, 483, doi: 10.1038/nature20094

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861 van Holstein, R

    Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861 van Holstein, R. G., Girard, J. H., de Boer, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834996 van Holstein, R. G., Stolker, T., Jensen-Clem, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039290

    1964 doi

  35. [43]

    2021, A&A, 651, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038107

    Vigan, A., Fontanive, C., Meyer, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038107

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    I., & Basu, S

    Vorobyov, E. I., & Basu, S. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1896, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1896 13

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    I., Khaibrakhmanov, S., Basu, S., & Audard, M

    Vorobyov, E. I., Khaibrakhmanov, S., Basu, S., & Audard, M. 2020, A&A, 644, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039081

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2023, ApJL, 952, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace186

    Weber, P., P´ erez, S., Zurlo, A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 952, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace186

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc9a2

    Weber, P., Ulloa, S., P´ erez, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc9a2

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    W., & Stone, J

    Xu, W., Jiang, Y.-F., Kunz, M. W., & Stone, J. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.12042, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.12042

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/16

    Zhu, Z. 2015, ApJ, 799, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/16

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    Zhu, Z., Hartmann, L., Gammie, C., & McKinney, J. C. 2009, ApJ, 701, 620, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/620

    2009 doi

  43. [51]

    Zhu, Z., Ju, W., & Stone, J. M. 2016, ApJ, 832, 193, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/193

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.05797, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.05797

    Zurlo, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.05797, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.05797

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec42

    Zurlo, A., Garufi, A., P´ erez, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec42

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.